Allowed

Chetana Institute of Management and Research v. Prof. Anahat Narismh Hulyalkar and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2016WP/793/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order by the Industrial Court that refused the petitioner permission to be represented by a legal practitioner in an appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act, holding that Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be imported into the Gratuity Act.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Industrial Court dated 9 February 2015 setting aside the petitioner's right to legal representation is set aside; the Industrial Court is directed to permit representation by a legal

Chetana Institute of Management and Research Vs Prof… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

WP 793-16.doc

¶2

1/2

¶3

Chittewan

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.793 OF 2016 WITH IN PERSON APPLICATION NO.22 OF 2016

¶6

Chetana Institute of Management And Research ... Petitioner Versus Prof. Anahat Narismh Hulyalkar And Another … Respondents

¶7

Mr. P.C. Pavaskar for the Petitioner. Prof. Anahat Narismh Hulyalkar Respondent No.1 in person.

¶8

CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

¶9

DATE : 26 APRIL 2016.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also Respondent No.1 who appears in person. The impugned order refuses to permit the Petitioner to be represented through a Legal Practitioner in a pending appeal before the Industrial Court under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

¶12

2 The Industrial Court appears to have proceeded on the basis of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which the Industrial Court calls “mother law of industrial disputes”. Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, permits a party to an Industrial dispute to be represented by a legal practitioner with the consent of the other parties to the proceedings and with leave of the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be. The Industrial Court appears to have

¶13

WP 793-16.doc

¶14

2/2

¶15

Chittewan

¶16

imported this provision into the texture of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and on that basis, denied the Petitioner's right to be represented through a legal practitioner of his choice.

¶17

3 The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Rules framed therein, which provide for an appeal and a machinery for prosecution of such appeal before the appellate authority constituted under that Act, contain no such provision or restriction on the lines of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Ordinarily, any party to a proceeding before a Court, be it a Civil Court or an Industrial Court, ought to be permitted to conduct his case with the help of a legal practitioner of his choice. It is only when the law contains a specific restriction in the matter of such representation that such right can be restricted. In the case of an appeal before appellate authority, namely, the Industrial Court, the Payment of Gratuity Act does not provide for any such restriction and none can be judicially carved out by importing the provisions of Section 36(4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 into the former Act.

¶18

4 The impugned order dated 9 February 2015 of the Industrial Court, accordingly, cannot be sustained. The same is set aside and the Industrial Court, Mumbai is directed to permit the Petitioner herein to be represented through a legal practitioner of his choice in the pending appeal, being Appeal (PGA) No.30 of 2014. No order as to the costs.

¶19

(S.C.GUPTE, J.)

Chetana Institute of Management and Research v. Prof. Anahat Narismh Hulyalkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetana Institute of Management and Research v. Prof. Anahat Narismh Hulyalkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Sun-N-Sand Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajendra R. Balmiki

Shri Vithal Maruti Salokhe and Ors. Vs M/S. Fan Corporation and Ors.

Public Works and Irigation Kamgar Sangh through General Secretary, Shri. Jahangir Yakub Shaikh Vs Executive Engineer and Anr.

Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital and Anr. Vs Sanjay Dinkar Rane

Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital and Anr. Vs Shri Sachin Vasant Desai

Nitesh Prataprai Kothari Vs John Braganza and Jerson John Braganza (Applicant) and Ors.